H.W.J. Designs for Agribusiness, Inc. v. Rethceif Enterprises, LLC ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 H.W.J. DESIGNS FOR AGRIBUSINESS, Case No. 1:17-cv-00272-AWI-SKO INC., et al., 12 ORDER GRANTING IN PART Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 13 EXTENSION OF DEADLINES PENDING v. ISSUANCE OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION 14 ORDER RETHCEIF ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al., 15 (Doc. 171) Defendants. 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Plaintiffs filed this patent infringement case against Defendants on February 24, 2017. 19 (Doc. 1.) The Court entered a scheduling order on November 30, 2018, setting the claim 20 construction hearing for April 8, 2019, the non-expert discovery deadline for October 31, 2019, the 21 expert discovery deadline for April 5, 2020, the dispositive motions filing deadline for April 17, 22 2020, and a trial date of September 15, 2020. (Doc. 99 at 1–2.) 23 The Court held a claim construction hearing on April 9, 2019, and May 7, 2019. (See Docs. 24 127, 132.) The parties then jointly requested an extension of certain scheduling order deadlines, 25 (Doc. 146), which the Court granted. (Doc. 147.) The parties jointly requested to further continue 26 the expert disclosures deadline and the non-expert discovery deadline, which the Court again 27 granted, extending, in relevant part, the expert disclosures deadline to January 27, 2020. (See Docs. 1 On December 18, 2019, Defendants filed a “Motion for Extension of Deadlines Pending 2 Issuance of Claim Construction Order,” (Doc. 171), which Plaintiffs opposed, (Docs. 176, 177, 3 178).1 For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ motion is granted in part. 4 II. DISCUSSION 5 Requests to modify a scheduling order are governed by Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules 6 of Civil Procedure, which provides that a court may modify a scheduling order “only for good 7 cause.” Rule 16(b)’s good cause inquiry focuses primarily on the movant’s diligence. Coleman v. 8 Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1295 (9th Cir. 2000). A trial court may also consider prejudice 9 to any opposing party in ruling on a motion to modify the scheduling order. 10 Defendants request that the Court extend the January 27, 2020 expert disclosures deadline 11 to 60 days after the Court’s claim construction ruling and extend the remaining deadlines 12 accordingly. (See Doc. 171 at 2.) Plaintiffs oppose any extension of the existing schedule. (See 13 Docs. 177, 178.) 14 The Court finds good cause for an extension of the expert disclosures deadline tied to the 15 Court’s claim construction ruling. See, e.g., Parker-Hannifin Corporation v. Wix Filtration 16 Corporation, No. 1:07 CV 1374, 2009 WL 10689387, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 4, 2009). Cf. 17 Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Commerce Bancshares, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-04160-NKL, 2014 WL 18 2511308, at *4 (W.D. Mo. June 4, 2014). Delaying expert discovery until after the Court construes 19 the claims will conserve resources by necessitating expert discovery on only one claim 20 construction, as opposed to discovery related to each of the parties’ proposed constructions. The 21 requested extension will also prevent the need to reopen expert discovery if the Court construes the 22 claims differently than any party proposed, which will prevent the need to later extend the summary 23 judgment-related deadlines. See, e.g., Digital-Vending Servs. Int’l, LLC v. Univ. of Phoenix Inc., 24 No. 2:09-CV-555, 2010 WL 11450408, at *16 (E.D. Va. June 10, 2010); see also B & H Mfg. Co., 25 Inc. v. Sidel S.A.S., No. 2:07-cv-02208-MCE-EFB, 2009 WL 3762407, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 26 2009). 27 1 Plaintiffs filed their opposition brief and certain exhibits under seal, (Docs. 177, 178), pursuant to their 1 Thus, the Court finds good cause to modify the scheduling order and that Plaintiffs will not 2 be unduly prejudiced by the modification, and that tying the expert disclosures deadline to the 3 Court’s claim construction ruling is appropriate in this case. See Federal Judicial Center, Patent 4 Case Management Judicial Guide § 2.1.3.2.3.3, at 2-22 (2016) (“Expert reports on infringement, 5 invalidity, and damages are central to almost every patent case. Technical experts opine . . . based 6 on the meaning of the claim terms as determined by (or anticipated from) the court’s claim- 7 construction order. For this reason, claim construction should precede expert reports . . . Many 8 courts, therefore, schedule expert discovery . . . to begin after claim construction.”). 9 The Court will extend the expert disclosures deadline and modify the scheduling order2 10 pending the issuance of a claim construction ruling, but not to the extent requested by Defendants. 11 Instead, the Court will extend the expert disclosures deadline to 30 days after the Court’s claim 12 construction ruling, and vacate the remaining deadlines and hearings, to be re-set after entry of the 13 Court’s claim construction ruling. 14 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 16 1. Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Deadlines Pending Issuance of Claim 17 Construction Order, (Doc. 171), is GRANTED IN PART; 18 2. The scheduling order dates are MODIFIED3 as follows: 19 a. The expert disclosures deadline is extended to 30 days after entry of the 20 Court’s claim construction ruling; and 21 b. The rebuttal expert disclosures deadline, expert discovery deadline, non- 22 dispositive motions and dispositive motions filing and hearing deadlines, 23 settlement conference date, and pretrial conference and trial dates, are 24 vacated, to be later re-set. 25 3. The parties SHALL file, by no later than seven (7) days after entry of the 26 2 Nothing in this order shall be construed to stay the proceedings in this case, and the parties may, for 27 example, file dispositive or non-dispositive motions deemed appropriate at any time. 3 If the parties believe that a settlement conference would be productive at any time, they may request a new 1 Court’s claim construction ruling, a joint status report (1) proposing dates for the 2 remaining deadlines and hearings, including the settlement conference, pretrial conference 3 and trial dates, and (2) advising the Court of the status of the case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Sheila K. Oberto 6 Dated: January 8, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27